I'm really on the fence about this. I love mass transit, and I firmly believe in it, and if any part of this city needs some traffic relief it's the horribly planned mess that is the west side.

At the same time, mass transit is best when it serves a tighter urban core. You achieve the most efficiency in a system when you have higher population densities. By extending more public transit so far out into the desert, you're only encouraging more growth out there, which will fuel further demand for these overstretched routes. Wouldn't it make more sense to focus on the core of Albuquerque and encourage densification and urban backfill? (This would achieve greater savings in all other systems infrastructure as well, including roads, electricity, water and sewer, etc.)

I dunno. I'm really torn. On the one hand I want to get all those poor schmucks out of their cars and reducing their carbon footprint, but at the same time I don't want to see that part of town grow any faster than it already is.

On the one hand I want to get all those poor schmucks out of their cars and reducing their carbon footprint, but at the same time I don't want to see that part of town grow any faster than it already is.

Well, here's the thing: the West Side is going to grow, mass transit or no. A co-worker of mine just bought a house out in outer bumfrack Rio Rancho (they don't even have mail service out there yet!) and when I asked her why (she's already complained about the commute from a little closer in on the West Side), she said she couldn't afford anything in Albq. Now, I have my doubts about that, but what she meant was she couldn't afford anything comparable. See, the peoples still want their big houses for less money (pre-fab ghettos) and the West Side is where they're getting them. So, it is a nice dream to want everyone to live in the core of Albq, but it just isn't going to happen. So we need to give the sprawlers some alternative to their cars--AND make it more difficult for them to use their cars. As long as we make it easier for people to get around by car, they will use their cars. Make it annoying to drag the car along (think Manhattan) and more people will look for an alternative.

"I'm really on the fence about this. I love mass transit, and I firmly believe in it, and if any part of this city needs some traffic relief it's the horribly planned mess that is the west side."

I really don't get this. I live in Paradise Hills and work in downtown. It takes me 25 minutes to get to work. When I lived in the NE heights it took just as long if not longer. Yet you don't mention those in the NE heights.

Doesn't really matter to me any longer though. My wife and I have made the decision to move to Bosque Farms! 1 acre lot and all its glory. No more neighbors poking their noses into my yard. Well, sure they can in BF but from a distance! :^)

//I really don't get this. I live in Paradise Hills and work in downtown. It takes me 25 minutes to get to work. When I lived in the NE heights it took just as long if not longer. Yet you don't mention those in the NE heights.//

The difference, I suppose, is that the Northeast Heights is a) established, and b) limited by geographical boundaries. It's not a matter of growing out so much as filling in. Densifying existing urban areas is considerably less resource intensive, and increases the efficiency of existing infrastructure through economies of scale. For the most part, the same roads and utilities and services (trash pickup, police, street sweepers, etc.) can serve an increasingly population in the same geographical footprint.

Contrariwise, you have the west side, which can ostensibly grow as far west as the Rio Puerco. Running the same services to increasingly far-flung regions becomes costly to the point where quality of service is diminished. You have too large a physical area to effectively and efficiently serve.

Here's an example. I have enough funding for one additional shift's worth of buses and drivers. I could create a new line, run it out to the west side, and service an underserved population. I can get buses every 30 minutes, and pick up anyone within about 1/8 mile of the line (the distance the average American is willing to walk). Of course, this extremely limited bus service is far from convenient, to the point that ridership is paltry at best.

On the other hand, I could use the same buses and drivers to bolster existing services in established parts of town. I could lengthen the hours of operation, increase the bus frequency, or fill in much narrower service gaps. This improves the convenience of the system, and increases ridership, increasing the return on my investment. This more convenient bus service (hopefully) would attract more people to the area, increasing density and thus the efficiency/efficacy of the services I provide to my citizens.

Doug,
I seem to remember a bumper sticker from when I was a kiddo, when the only bridge north of I-40 was the two lane (!) Alameda bridge. It read, "The bridge is in Brooklyn" and was crafted in response to the influx of New Yorkers to Rio Rancho and the west side. I guess there will always be pesky ferners coming in these here parts with their new-fangled, high falutin ways.

Nathan, I am the person that solicits volunteers to do the Morning Fix. If a volunteer can't do the MF for some reason, I have to pitch in (and quite often Kitson or Sophie will pitch in), usually last minute, to do it. This is one of those weeks. I would love if you would take a turn at doing a week of MF in March and come up with all the great headlines you can think of. If you are interested, send me a message and I'll get you set up. Thanks. Adelita